.Lord Monckton - has completed a tour of Australia, with a presentation not dis-similar to that of Al Gore!Did you get to see him - I did not!

Thousands flocked to hear his comments and to see what he could present to justify his stance.Many hundreds were turned away from the doors, because there was "No room at the Inn" for them.

Interestingly, some have viciously vilified the man as a sharleton and a fraud, and yet he seems to have only presented a more accurate analysis of what Al Gore tried to push as indisputable fact.

What can we really believe?

You have likely already seen Al Gore and his very profitable movie "An Inconvenient Truth"!Al-Pal preached imminent drowning and purchased a Condo , on reclaimed waterside land.

So you should seek out Lord Monckton and see what he counters with.Just GOOGLE or Anzwers.com.au the simple words lord monckton, and you are sure to find a standard presentation.. ( I like 'anzwers' as it tends to find more Australian related references ).

Inside Monckton’s Melbourne meeting, most of the attendees looked like Ian Plimer. It was a gathering of men in Richie Benaud blazers, sometimes accompanied by silver-haired wives, dressed up as if for a night at the opera.

Has it become a case of THEM and US.. .. The YOUNG and the OLD.. .. Those who have NO long term memory, and those who are starting to loose theirs?Those with little life experience and those who have survived just so much!

We hear the qualification to the weather report -- "the hottest days since 1843" and we slump into despair, believing that the world is truly ending in 13.32687 years. posting.php?mode=edit&f=19&t=735&p=4490#

I am waiting in my thongs, standing on the boat ramp at Cooks River ... ... When will I get my feet wet ?..

Last edited by Tracker on Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:58 am, edited 2 times in total.

.I am just one of the vast majority - I want to believe "Science" when it tells me something.I watched Al Gore and I believed - I saw the graphs and the photographs, and I believed.I saw Lord Monekton and his graphs and his photos, and having heard all about the Copenhagen Conspiracies, I believed. . posting.php?mode=edit&f=19&p=5015&sid=ba362c536a2c88d2fbbc387fc0d217b5#

But when I really think about it, I am a doubting Thomas - If I can't see the proof, then in view of all the LIES that have been told - What can I possibly believe?

I am just so confused about Climate Change - CAN ANYONE tell me FACTS that are true?

Where has the sea risen. and don't cite subduction as sea rise.I've written to Pacific Ocean Nations and they have not seen any sea rise.

Where has the sea got genuinely hotter.

Where are the glaciers really melting, like they have NEVER done before .?

Hi Tracker, if one side presents something as indisputable fact (even if its not) and the other side refutes those facts with more indisputable facts (even if they are aren't); it makes it pretty hard to state the indisputable facts you are wanting as this is the roundabout that has been happening for years and will not be any different here.

It's such a huge issue that none of us can get our heads around as individuals without relying on third party information to condense things in a form we can start to grasp one way or another.

In order to understand the situation more thoroughly, we could drop everything we are doing and focus the rest of our lives on climate science and still not know as we would still be depending on the information provided by others which could be mistakenly or purposely manipulated to serve whatever purpose.

We simply can't understand all the data and we can only form a general opinion based on what we can - people spend good chunks of their lives working on a very small fraction of the overall picture and still not understand how that piece fits into the overall puzzle.

I guess at the end of the day for we ordinary folk, we do our research as best we can, then reach inside and go with our gut; also weighing up the risks of action vs. inaction and all that good stuff .

The whole climate debate now reminds me of religion a little; how it's all become so confused with "sacred texts" being translated differently to back whatever belief or "fact" is being put forth - again, this applies to both sides.

One of my concerns now isn't just about climate change, but the whole debate getting so heated we start having "Believer vs. Non-Believer" type very violent skirmishes over the topic - and if some of the threads on various forums around the place I monitor are any indication, it's not all that far off - heck, it's already started in some ways with all the espionage etc. going on - albeit it it's a bloodless war.. so far. That might seem a little far-fetched, but there's a lot at stake here for both sides - money, power, culture, lifestyle - the whole shebang. It's a defining moment in human history.

In summary, I really don't think you'll find the answers you're wanting in our humble forums - it's a great topic to stir up emotions and debate though; but unfortunately, it usually winds up becoming a slinging match at some stage because of the points mentioned above.

Michael B.Energy Matters Forum Team (Please note: I am not a solar tech or installer)

.But - Surely there is a boat ramp , somewhere, that can't be used, or a beach of dead fish, or a creek that is now a river. Have the sand-islands in Dubai been covered with water? ANYTHING - Please....

All I ever see is "Unusual weather Conditions" that we seem to hear far more about because of far better world communications. Why, a sparrow can't fart in Outer Mongolia without the world finding out about it, and a web-cam covering all the intimate details.

So why do we not see the simple fact of a bridge under-water, or something that proves that there is sea level rise, and if "They" say that the glaciers are really melting then there must be a physical sign elsewhere, or else the opposition mob is correct and the melted ice has redeposited elsewhere.

This might be a humble renewable-energy forum, but do not think that it is not being seen all around the world.

but there's a lot at stake here for both sides - money, power, culture, lifestyle - the whole shebang. It's a defining moment in human history.

AND - my friend, that is the exact reason why it is VERY important that these discussions be held, and be able to be held, lest the disaster-supporters believe that they have a complete mandate to change the world to an image as they see it. Stifle the discussion and you give in to their change !!!http://forums.energymatters.com.au/posting.php?mode=edit&f=19&p=5019&sid=ab3948faf7edff0b46cd80a1c387369f#..

As you referred to religion I have recently taken an Agnostic stand on Climate Change , Global Warming / Cooling .Agnostic for those who are not clear on the meaning it means I don't believe in the above and as I don't believe there is nothing to disprove.Agnostic also means something that very few are humble enough to admit , "I don't know" , I won't change what I am doing "Just in case" or because "maybe" is will make a difference, I simply have no idea just like 99.9% of the people who just have to state their opinion either way.

Tracker wrote:.I am just one of the vast majority - I want to believe "Science" when it tells me something.I watched Al Gore and I believed - I saw the graphs and the photographs, and I believed.I saw Lord Monekton and his graphs and his photos, and having heard all about the Copenhagen Conspiracies, I believed. . posting.php?mode=edit&f=19&p=5015&sid=ba362c536a2c88d2fbbc387fc0d217b5#

But when I really think about it, I am a doubting Thomas - If I can't see the proof, then in view of all the LIES that have been told - What can I possibly believe?.

Isn't this the same problem us intelligent humans subject our children too ? first the tooth fairy , then the easter bunny and then the heart breaker santa claus , all taught to kids as fact only later to tell them it is all BS , then there is the adult version of santa claus , you know be a good boy , do everything right and you will live forever in a place called heaven where all your dreams will come true.

While the world is full of people that believe in things that require no evidence besides feelings what hope have we got at finding truthful factual answers to anything.

Moral of the story is don't let beliefs cloud the facts , unfortunately finding facts that are not belief biased is our biggest challenge.

Tracker, I'm sure you've done a lot of research on this topic too, so you have seen the evidence you seek of phenomenon attributed to climate change already occurring. I'm sure you've also seen the arguments that X phenomenon is attributed to something else; hence the confusion you state you are experiencing.

That's what I'm trying to get at - how do we tell who is right without a lifetime of hands-on research and expertise in that specific area? And even if we had that, it would only be a thorough knowledge of one jigsaw piece and perhaps not how it fits in the whole puzzle.

This is not about stifling arguments, the debate rages on in thousands of forums around the world. The pro and con is in the mainstream media every day.

However, even among the seeming believers/non-believers/agnostics, there are people posing as being for/against/confused/impartial about whether climate change is occurring, but who have a different agenda - they seek to "deceive, inveigle and obfuscate" in order to influence a particular view as their mind is already made up. This makes things even more confusing.

But even with all this going on, decisions need to be made.

But, by all means, debate away here to your hearts content, but first some housekeeping rules to try and head off where this discussion will invariably go otherwise being such a sensitive issue that stirs up strong emotions.

Everyone, I ask for a nice clean debate - stay on topic, no punching below the belt, no spitting, no clawing, pinching, kicking and absolutely no ad hominem type exchanges. If anyone is considering participating in this thread and you're not sure what "ad hominem" is; please read over this page:

Instead of locking the topic when the slinging starts happening as I did in the previous thread when the quality of discussion started to degrade, in the interests of not stifling this discussion you wish to have, what I'll try this time is just delete posts where an ad hominem attack is made.

I won't have time to edit the offending post or go into lengthy explanations, I'll just have to zap it; so people should carefully consider the contents of their contribution before hitting the submit button.

Let's just stick to a discussion of the "facts", bearing in mind that "facts" are not always what they seem either.

That all said, enjoy your discussion, I'll step away now and will continue to monitor from the sidelines .

Michael B.Energy Matters Forum Team (Please note: I am not a solar tech or installer)

MichaelB wrote:Tracker, I'm sure you've done a lot of research on this topic too, so you have seen the evidence you seek of phenomenon attributed to climate change already occurring. I'm sure you've also seen the arguments that X phenomenon is attributed to something else; hence the confusion you state you are experiencing.

I am an old engineer.. I see things mechanically, in black and white.. .. If I am told something and given justification, and quantification, etc., etc.. Then I want to believe .. I want to trust the engineering and the study that caused that finding.. . If I am deceived then I get angry and reject the ENTIRE proposal.

That is why I ask the simple question --- WHERE --- Where has a change taken place?

MichaelB wrote:Instead of locking the topic when the slinging starts happening as I did in the previous thread when the quality of discussion started to degrade, in the interests of not stifling this discussion you wish to have, what I'll try this time is just delete posts where an ad hominem attack is made.

AGREED - Keep it clean - Keep it Un-Personal . - . I know that I am pretty thick and the sponge is not as absorbent as it might have once been.So let's present the facts, and consider what is REAL ?

It's already been mentioned that Climate Change is like religion, and I can agree with that!

I like hard evidence myself, and also like to try things out myself to prove a point (if not for others, at least for myself). For example, someone asked on Dr Karl's JJJ radio show earlier this year about Global Warming and the effect of all the ice melting increasing ocean levels. I forgot his exact reposnse, but I think it was along the lines of that when water freezes, it expands, so you could theoretcially assume that as the ice melts, it reduces in overall size and reduces the level of the ocean.

So I thought of a simple test which I tried myself. Now I'm no qualified scientist (and am more than happy for anyone to point out the flaws in my experiment ) but I had nothing to lose and gave it a go...

I got a glass half-full of water, and filled it almost to the top with ice cubes, and covered it with glad wrap (to prevent moisture loss/evaporation). I marked the water level, and waited a few hours for the ice to melt, and the water level remained the same. I understand the ratio of water-air and ice-water would be no way representative of the earth's ocean, ice at the poles, or the atmosphere, but it was a simple enough experiment to prove (to me) that the water level isn't going to rise. I also know that a small percentage of the ice protrudes from the surface, and perhaps that may be enough to offset any expansion process when the water freezes. There could've also been tiny bubbles of air in the ice which accounted for the lack of water level rise. I don't know for sure. But I was satisfied with my little experiment.

Maybe it's one for Mythbusters - I'm sure they could do a few episodes on various Climate Change theories!

Another theory I have heard is that the ocean being a "carbon sink" and changes in it's temperature affect it's ability to absorb CO2. I haven't read into it enough to know if that is a viable theory.